[Infowarrior] - Should UK bank shock jock?

[Richard Forno]

I think Weiner (I refuse to call him 'Savage') is a rabblerouser and  
obnoxious, but this Brit is right ..... now they're looking to ban  
folks for expressing their opinions?  ---rf


Should we be banning this US 'shock jock'?
Posted By: Philip Johnston at May 5, 2009 at 15:51:33 [General]
Posted in: Three Line Whip
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/philip_johnston/blog/2009/05/05/should_we_be_banning_this_us_shock_jock

The Home Office has issued the latest list of people it believes  
should not come to the country because they hold extremist opinions.

It is a state's prerogative to decide who it wants to come to its  
country. That is, after all, what a visa system is for. But those  
banned from entry used to be people who were likely to cause public  
disorder or who had criminal records. In the 1960s there was a row  
when George Raft, the Hollywood actor, was refused entry because of  
his alleged links to organised crime. Now we are more likely than not  
to ban someone for what they think. The list of people banned over the  
past six months includes a former member of the Ku Klux Klan, a neo- 
Nazi, a Hamas MP, a Baptist pastor and his daughter barred for  
homophobia and a Jewish extremist. Oddly, it also contains the name  
Michael Savage, a US "shock jock" talk-show host whose views on Islam,  
rape and autism have stirred controversy in America. By all accounts,  
his views are pretty offensive; but is that reason enough to ban  
someone? The test usually is whether the individual in expressing his  
views would threaten public order. This is the justification given for  
refusing entry to the American political leader Louis Farrakhan,  
leader of the Nation of Islam. But to ban a radio presenter from a  
democratic country where he is allowed to broadcast freely is a new  
departure, as was the decision to refuse entry to Gert Wilders, the  
Dutch MP, a few months back for wanting to show a film about the Koran  
to British parliamentarians.

The Government claims Savage engages in unacceptable behaviour by  
seeking to provoke others to serious criminal acts and fostering  
hatred which might lead to inter-community violence. But is not the  
real reason he is barred because he preaches dislike of other groups  
rather than violence against them?

Home Office officials say Michael Savage, real name Michael Weiner,  
holds abhorrent views on immigration, Islam, rape and autism, which  
have caused great offence in America. That may be so. But are we now  
banning people because we don't like what they think or say; or are we  
accepting that anyone who responds violently to a view of which they  
disapprove can effectively veto other people's right to free speech?

Now we learn that Savage may sue the Home Secretary for defamation. He  
said he was outraged that he had been named alongside hate preachers  
and a member of Hamas.

He said: "For this lunatic Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary of  
England, to link me up with skinheads who are killing people in  
Russia, to put me in (the same) league with mass murderers who kill  
Jews on buses is defamation.

"I thought this was a joke or a mistake." He has a point. Jacqui Smith  
said the people who were banned were those whose views the country  
'would not tolerate'.

But who is she to make that decision? While it is the job of the Home  
Secretary to ensure the security and safety of the nation, it is not  
for her to decree what we should hear and to whom we should listen.